The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the enforcement of mortgage security without relief.
The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was upheld without modification.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.O7./2C.25
... Applicants
And
ICICI Bank Siddipet branch, P.M. Ibrahim Comolex^ Siddipet-502103 Rep. by its Authorized oflicer
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicants Sn K. Suresh Counsel for the Respondent Si G.Adian Kiran Raj
:ORDER:.
The lst Appricant is a driver by profession and availed oD loan of Rs. 18 lakhs lakhs in the year 2Ol7 from the Respondent and Applicant No.2 created mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r to secure the said loan. Due to Covid_19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. Without serving demand notice and possession notice on the Applicants' the Respondent directly initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 by filing crl.M.p.No.38 o/24 on the file of Ld.prt. Asst. Sessions Judge, Siddipet and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Siddipet issued notice dt.o3.12.2o24 to the Appricants to vacate the schedule premises. The impugned possession notice was not published in newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule propert5r and so, the said proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are illegal and arbitrary. Hence the SA.
o- The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contenaled that the Respondent sanctioned Mortgage Loan of Rs.7g lakhs against the mortgage of schedule property. Thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NpA as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.11.'O.2O2S u/s t3(2) ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was
published in two leading newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.23.O4.2O24 and the said notice was
published in two leading newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated proceedings before the Ld.prl.Asst. Sessions Judge, Siddipet for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Thus, the Respondent had followed the due procedure "'".'":":" :,:lrTYi*,i"S:+*rthe provisionsof sARFAEST Act, 2002 and Rute,#'madbr rhei8thd"xih f^r-;^ * in taking measures u/s 14 of the SARF
-, there merits in the SA and accordingly, Pra,ed o*dismi ff " ii tiitft,,r ri ',,1 -.--
ii. To uhat relief?
Potnt No.lil:_
6' During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
7' There is no dispute regarding the fact that the l"t Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and the 2'd Applicant created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards securit5r for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues.
,R The speci'c contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule S(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, t.,'e Respondent straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFA&Sffieotro o^A -^ +,^^ --! so, the said proceedinss are not regar ffi; ffi ,,f B'h that they have duly followed the s of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 arrtd, all the statutory notices to the
Applicants and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property /s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2.
10' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent encrosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt'l1'10'2023 u/s l3(2) of the 'ARFAESIAct, 2002 and sent the said notice to the Applicants and others through speed post and the said notice was duly received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowredgements filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication frled by the Respondent. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice d,23'o4'2024 u/s l3(4) of the Act, 2002 and, the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies ofpaper pubrication fired by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.
dt.03.L2.2024 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. The Applicants fi1ed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by them. so' the said notice dt.o3.72.2024 issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is perfectly regal and valid.
Point No.(ti)r
;'t //3-fifuP"BiP 6a*,ZbSr$($ {:.} ' 1\ l ba her, @ftected, sigied andproftounl'ed. by ne it the opetu @utt otu this the 6h daa
i'* i! nf,nrTrnx *
ffW**.copr.,ifll; Asst' ar"tilngt"?r*Reslsfrar PR"ESIDING OFFICER DEA.!,HYDEI?ABAD'
\ r'i,- )
:+,d. ^oosY,
\ ;;n*,"V
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the process server's possession notice was illegally isued without serving demand and possession notices complying with the Security Interest Enforcement Rules.
Whether the District Judge's order authorizing the possession proceedings is valid.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Ayub Khan and Mrs. Azmat Unnisa Begum
ICICI Bank Siddipet branch
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
